In that sense, the Hughes election is the merest extension of the Liberals’ long tradition of unprincipled opportunism. Any Bermondsey “homophobe” who marked his X for Mr Hughes on the grounds that the other bloke was a poof has received belatedly a cautionary lesson in the perils of the protest vote. Even Mr Hughes’ current claim of “bisexuality” has the whiff of artful centrist positioning about it: bi- is the proportional representation of sexuality in a world where most of us – straight or gay – operate a first-past-the-post system.

This is basically why I often think that all this chitchat in my part of the political spectrum about the Orange Book is a load of old hooey. It’s just the Liberals – now the LibDems - telling me what they think I want to hear, but sufficiently diluted so that it doesn’t frighten all their other various horses. When in that mood, I find myself despising the LibDems even more than usual.

That’s my opinion of the LibDems on Tuesdays, Thursdays (i.e. today), and Saturdays. On Mondays and Wednesdays I reckon that the LibDems are the least worst bet for classical liberalism, rather as Rob Knight does.

In this stimulating collection, the next generation of Liberal Democrat leaders, including MPs and MEPs David Laws, Edward Davey, Vince Cable, Steve Webb, Chris Huhne, Nick Clegg and Mark Oaten, proposes a vigorous future for the party and its policies. Building on traditional Liberal values and principles, they bring new and often provocative thinking to every area of social policy. Topics include the rejection of ‘nanny state’ liberalism, a fairer tax system and promotion of social justice, the need to encourage and support stable and secure families, a tougher prisons regime and stronger local government – as well as proposals for global governance, healthcare choice and pension reform, better incentives for environmental protection, and a balanced approach to EU reform and integration.

Up-to-the-minute, original, and persuasively argued, the thinking in this book demonstrates the Liberal Democrats’ vitality and social commitment, and gives a valuable insight into how the party will move in the future.

. . . and the vomit bag wins, today. It’s the weasel words I hate: “fairer”, “encourage and support” (how exactly?), “social justice”, “global governance” (governance seems to be the new word for nice government), “a balanced approach” (between what?), “stronger local government” (in what way?), blah blah blah. Okay you can’t say much in two paragraphs, but you can say a whole lot more than this. They might, for instance, have included the word “Gladstone”.

Much of party politics consists of saying things like “social justice” and “balanced approach” to great rooms full of idiots, who all nod their idiot heads. Who believes in anti-social injustice, or an unbalanced approach? Nobody, apart from people like me. (I believe in a totally unbalanced mixture of good and evil, consisting entirely of good, which means, e.g., lower taxes.) So, nods all round. Yet no two idiots are actually nodding their idiot heads at the same actual ideas. One idiot wants taxes to go down, but another idiot wants taxes to go up, because this is what both idiots take the word “fairer” to mean. And so, they go out canvassing for the same bloke, and achieve, what? Nothing. The Orange Book is classical liberalism translated into the vacuous language of idiot-nod, the idea being that I will recognise it as my opinions, and nod, but that everyone else in the LibDems will nod too.